I recently met a Brit who studies the psychology of environmentalism. Quick summary: To get people to act on environmental ideals, first make those beliefs salient, such as by making salient an in-group identity associated with the environment. For example, you might remind a Brit that Americans (the out-group) are less environmental than Brits (the in-group). Second, in such a moment of weakness, get people to declare their intention to take certain specific environmental actions, such as recycling each plastic bottle they use. Third, remind them of this intention when that action is to be taken, such as by having recycle logos near trash cans.
Is there a hidden assumption that everyone in the world is capable of overcoming bias in this discussion? Perhaps it is the case that certain attributes (such as low IQ) prevent an individual from ever being able to overcome their biases, no matter how effective the rationalist evangelism.
I associate bias with the extreme examples of bias, such as the work of Michael Moore or Anne Coulter. So when I catch my own bias, I think “Stop acting like Moore or Coulter!” (Two people I despise, by the way. I try to be like individuals that I perceive make legitimate efforts to be balanced in their thought… like Jonathan Rauch or Tyler Cowen. So I suppose my out-group consists or propagandists, talking heads and many politicians, while my in-group is how I imagine an ivory tower academic or ideal journalist might behave.
For me this approach isn’t just about bias, but more about the honest pursuit of truth more broadly (of which bias is an important part).
While I have a fairly clear in-group and out-group, I could probably some tools to remind me of my quest (recycling bins). Perhaps I can train myself, when I make claims in certain contexts, to review my claims for evidence, bias, etc. Or I could tattoo “BIAS” on my right wrist and “EVIDENCE” on my left.
I'm curious about whether you noticed that inducing a cognitive bias was the heart of Robin's proposed method, and if you noticed it, when did you notice it?
I have to admit I noticed it immediately. But that's because I've got many environmentalist friends (and dabble in it myself) so when it was mentioned that environmentalists use similar methods - that screamed "bias! bias! Warning: bias!".
But most of you, Stuart especially, also eddie, seem to be more of the consequentialist school. If it works, do it.
I'm not sure I would go along with my proposals - they make me uncomfortable. But, if we wanted to do this, that would be the way I would do it. After all, religions and environmental movements are very sucessful at motivating people.
An example derived from looking at environmentalism in a Kantian imperative way (nicked vicously from the book "Underground economist"): should environmental conferences attempt to be carbon neutral? The author's argument was that either the money available should be spent on more conferences, or the conference should be cancelled and all the money invested in carbon reduction - whichever is judged the most usefull environmental return.
I feel that "backing both horses" has many practical advantages (publicity-wise, especially - seeing how Al Gore has been criticised for having a big house offset by carbon reductions, imagine what it would be if it wasn't offset? Note that the house is irrelevant to the substance of Gore's point). However it also has the advantage of working in ignorance - if you're not sure of the environmental impact of a conference compared with carbon reductions, then backing both can be a usefull hedge.
However, even if I was pretty sure that using biases to unbias people would work (taking all the pros and cons into account), I would probably avoid doing it until I was nearly certain - there seems to be a trace of Kantian imperative in me (or a dislike of being a hypocrite, take your pick). A bias, in other words.
I have known for many years that I should do this, but I seem to have great difficulty remembering to do it.
Maybe think of "facts about the world" as decided by a hidden FACT-parliment, including many political parties you would disagree with. So if some probable fact offends you, before rejecting it, wonder "maybe this fact was decided by the fascist party in the FACT-parliment" (a lot of the facts about genetic determinism might fit into that category). If something fits very neatly with your opinions, then wonder "did my favourite party really get a majority and get this fact passed? Or was it overruled by the nasty parties, making this "fact" an manifesto promise, nothing more? Or maybe this is a coalition fact - has some nice aspects to if, but also other aspects I haven't noticed.Very silly, but sometimes helps.
just as you seem to be more proposing a "think for yourself" club. These might be good first steps for some people, but they do embody substantial biases.
I don't see it as a think for yourself (though that's natural first step). Probably more as a "think for yourself" to figure out what you should use to come to the truth - including when to defer to the crowd, when to defer to the experts, and when to trust your own opinions. But I admit there is a huge hole - all those biases that we cannot overcome just by being aware of them. Are there any methods for overcoming these biases?
TGGP : I do not believe in the "ethical/unethical" distinction in any sense other than "I like/dislike when X is done"
Neither do I.
so to talk about an ethical "bias" seems meaningless to me.
Still it is not meaningless.Some (for whatever reason) tend to act "ethically", that is, with concern about other people interests, some others tend to act with the utmost disregard for others or even for animals, earth ecosystems, whatever.Thus this is indeed a bias with respect to their own behavior regardless of (proper) cognitive biases they may have.The "ethical" biases only bring cognitive biases is they are unconscious, but some are fairly aware of their ethical/unethical position.
I was talking about that general idea only with regard to bias rather than the environment.
Kevembuangga, as an emotivist/Stirnerite I do not believe in the "ethical/unethical" distinction in any sense other than "I like/dislike when X is done", so to talk about an ethical "bias" seems meaningless to me. The post began by talking about a person who encouraged environmental action in others, and I was talking about that general idea only with regard to bias rather than the environment.
Eliminating all biases sounds like a tough task. Maybe we should identify the worst biases, and use other biases to counter them.
I share Hopefully Anonymous' attitudes. Other people being irrational is a problem so far as it leads them to do things that harm me, whereas my own irrationality will more frequently harm me.
Kevembuannga,As a consequentialist/egoist (at least I think I am) I lean against working to overcome all biases as a long run goal. For example, I certainly don't plan to donate my body to medical science and I don't plan to be an organ donor. Instead I plan to persist in this body and failing that, to have it cryopreserved to maximize my future revival ods. However, I'm glad that many people do do both and I consider myself to be a happy freerider off of them. In fact, I'd like to convince many more people to donate their bodies and and organs, and I'd happily prey off of whatever cognitive bias makes them susceptible to doing so. For example, a belief on faith that they have a soul that persists when their body dies coupled with a desire to emulate Jesus and sacrifice their bodies so that others may suffer less (such as a future me ill and needing an organ transplant). So, good point Kevembuangga!
Sorry to introduce again a contarian view but is it sure that overcoming all cognitive biases is really good in the long run for the very person who would achieve it?Is it even possible?
I guess I am using a sort of Kantian Categorical Imperative idea: if you don't think other people should induce cognitive biases in others, you should not yourself induce them in others. Deontological ethics. Only if I think everybody should do it, should I do it.
But most of you, Stuart especially, also eddie, seem to be more of the consequentialist school. If it works, do it.
When Robin says it is 'dangerous' to do it, I'm guessing he is consequentialist.
I think a lot of confusion arises in people's thinking (mine here) because they are not separating questions of value from questions of fact and truth. They don't put the 'ought' part of arguements in a separate category from the 'is' part. In this thread there were certain things people said that I simply didn't understand until I was able to make this separation.
I have known for many years that I should do this, but I seem to have great difficulty remembering to do it.
Might be better if you could see a stick figure reading an article with that content. Or something. Just a random image that occurred to me while reading the comments here.
You'll never get anyone to join the Bias Busters Club. But you'll get people joining the I'm Not Like Everyone Else Club in droves, even if they're really just opposing whatever they think everyone else thinks instead of actually thinking for themselves. But joining that club is only a small first step (at least it would be if I were running it), and it's through a series of small steps that large changes in behavior are made.
I wouldn't say that my Church of Rationality discourages some biases by encouraging others. Rather, it discourages all biases (eventually) by *exploiting* some biases (initially).
To Robin, Michael, Anders, Hopefully, Nancy, Daublin, Stuart:
I'm curious about whether you noticed that inducing a cognitive bias was the heart of Robin's proposed method, and if you noticed it, when did you notice it? I myself took about 5 hours to notice it, of which only a few minutes, widely separated, was spent actually thinking about it, the rest of the time going about my regular business. Unfortunately, I don't recall how I came to realize it. I have to admit that almost always I have to depend on others to point out to me my cognitive biases: reviewers of papers, people I'm talking with, encountering opposed views and failing to argue effectively against them, etc,
I wonder if we don't need more of a medical-type model for overcoming bias, in which each of the 67 or so biases is regarded as a distinct disorder, with its own etiology, predisposing factors, symptoms, treatment, prognosis. I'm not sure how far we will get considering Bias as a single entity, or unitary category.
Stuart, yes, Eddie seemed to be proposing a freethinker club more than an overcoming bias club, just as you seem to be more proposing a "think for yourself" club. These might be good first steps for some people, but they do embody substantial biases.
Bruce, yes, it seems dangerous to try to discourage some biases by encouraging other biases.
Is there a hidden assumption that everyone in the world is capable of overcoming bias in this discussion? Perhaps it is the case that certain attributes (such as low IQ) prevent an individual from ever being able to overcome their biases, no matter how effective the rationalist evangelism.
Or I could tattoo “BIAS” on my right wrist and “EVIDENCE” on my left.
Any political implications in your choice of wrists? :-)
I associate bias with the extreme examples of bias, such as the work of Michael Moore or Anne Coulter. So when I catch my own bias, I think “Stop acting like Moore or Coulter!” (Two people I despise, by the way. I try to be like individuals that I perceive make legitimate efforts to be balanced in their thought… like Jonathan Rauch or Tyler Cowen. So I suppose my out-group consists or propagandists, talking heads and many politicians, while my in-group is how I imagine an ivory tower academic or ideal journalist might behave.
For me this approach isn’t just about bias, but more about the honest pursuit of truth more broadly (of which bias is an important part).
While I have a fairly clear in-group and out-group, I could probably some tools to remind me of my quest (recycling bins). Perhaps I can train myself, when I make claims in certain contexts, to review my claims for evidence, bias, etc. Or I could tattoo “BIAS” on my right wrist and “EVIDENCE” on my left.
Bruce Britton, I didn't frame Robin's post as being about installing a bias, and I'm still not sure that's a good way to think about it.
I'm curious about whether you noticed that inducing a cognitive bias was the heart of Robin's proposed method, and if you noticed it, when did you notice it?
I have to admit I noticed it immediately. But that's because I've got many environmentalist friends (and dabble in it myself) so when it was mentioned that environmentalists use similar methods - that screamed "bias! bias! Warning: bias!".
But most of you, Stuart especially, also eddie, seem to be more of the consequentialist school. If it works, do it.
I'm not sure I would go along with my proposals - they make me uncomfortable. But, if we wanted to do this, that would be the way I would do it. After all, religions and environmental movements are very sucessful at motivating people.
An example derived from looking at environmentalism in a Kantian imperative way (nicked vicously from the book "Underground economist"): should environmental conferences attempt to be carbon neutral? The author's argument was that either the money available should be spent on more conferences, or the conference should be cancelled and all the money invested in carbon reduction - whichever is judged the most usefull environmental return.
I feel that "backing both horses" has many practical advantages (publicity-wise, especially - seeing how Al Gore has been criticised for having a big house offset by carbon reductions, imagine what it would be if it wasn't offset? Note that the house is irrelevant to the substance of Gore's point). However it also has the advantage of working in ignorance - if you're not sure of the environmental impact of a conference compared with carbon reductions, then backing both can be a usefull hedge.
However, even if I was pretty sure that using biases to unbias people would work (taking all the pros and cons into account), I would probably avoid doing it until I was nearly certain - there seems to be a trace of Kantian imperative in me (or a dislike of being a hypocrite, take your pick). A bias, in other words.
I have known for many years that I should do this, but I seem to have great difficulty remembering to do it.
Maybe think of "facts about the world" as decided by a hidden FACT-parliment, including many political parties you would disagree with. So if some probable fact offends you, before rejecting it, wonder "maybe this fact was decided by the fascist party in the FACT-parliment" (a lot of the facts about genetic determinism might fit into that category). If something fits very neatly with your opinions, then wonder "did my favourite party really get a majority and get this fact passed? Or was it overruled by the nasty parties, making this "fact" an manifesto promise, nothing more? Or maybe this is a coalition fact - has some nice aspects to if, but also other aspects I haven't noticed.Very silly, but sometimes helps.
just as you seem to be more proposing a "think for yourself" club. These might be good first steps for some people, but they do embody substantial biases.
I don't see it as a think for yourself (though that's natural first step). Probably more as a "think for yourself" to figure out what you should use to come to the truth - including when to defer to the crowd, when to defer to the experts, and when to trust your own opinions. But I admit there is a huge hole - all those biases that we cannot overcome just by being aware of them. Are there any methods for overcoming these biases?
TGGP : I do not believe in the "ethical/unethical" distinction in any sense other than "I like/dislike when X is done"
Neither do I.
so to talk about an ethical "bias" seems meaningless to me.
Still it is not meaningless.Some (for whatever reason) tend to act "ethically", that is, with concern about other people interests, some others tend to act with the utmost disregard for others or even for animals, earth ecosystems, whatever.Thus this is indeed a bias with respect to their own behavior regardless of (proper) cognitive biases they may have.The "ethical" biases only bring cognitive biases is they are unconscious, but some are fairly aware of their ethical/unethical position.
I was talking about that general idea only with regard to bias rather than the environment.
I don't get what you mean here.
Kevembuangga, as an emotivist/Stirnerite I do not believe in the "ethical/unethical" distinction in any sense other than "I like/dislike when X is done", so to talk about an ethical "bias" seems meaningless to me. The post began by talking about a person who encouraged environmental action in others, and I was talking about that general idea only with regard to bias rather than the environment.
Hopefully Anonymous, TGGP : ...against working to overcome all biases... / ...Other people being irrational is a problem...
I was only talking about eliminating cognitive biases (not ethical/unethical) and for oneself (not for others).
Eliminating all biases sounds like a tough task. Maybe we should identify the worst biases, and use other biases to counter them.
I share Hopefully Anonymous' attitudes. Other people being irrational is a problem so far as it leads them to do things that harm me, whereas my own irrationality will more frequently harm me.
Kevembuannga,As a consequentialist/egoist (at least I think I am) I lean against working to overcome all biases as a long run goal. For example, I certainly don't plan to donate my body to medical science and I don't plan to be an organ donor. Instead I plan to persist in this body and failing that, to have it cryopreserved to maximize my future revival ods. However, I'm glad that many people do do both and I consider myself to be a happy freerider off of them. In fact, I'd like to convince many more people to donate their bodies and and organs, and I'd happily prey off of whatever cognitive bias makes them susceptible to doing so. For example, a belief on faith that they have a soul that persists when their body dies coupled with a desire to emulate Jesus and sacrifice their bodies so that others may suffer less (such as a future me ill and needing an organ transplant). So, good point Kevembuangga!
Sorry to introduce again a contarian view but is it sure that overcoming all cognitive biases is really good in the long run for the very person who would achieve it?Is it even possible?
I guess I am using a sort of Kantian Categorical Imperative idea: if you don't think other people should induce cognitive biases in others, you should not yourself induce them in others. Deontological ethics. Only if I think everybody should do it, should I do it.
But most of you, Stuart especially, also eddie, seem to be more of the consequentialist school. If it works, do it.
When Robin says it is 'dangerous' to do it, I'm guessing he is consequentialist.
I think a lot of confusion arises in people's thinking (mine here) because they are not separating questions of value from questions of fact and truth. They don't put the 'ought' part of arguements in a separate category from the 'is' part. In this thread there were certain things people said that I simply didn't understand until I was able to make this separation.
I have known for many years that I should do this, but I seem to have great difficulty remembering to do it.
One iconic image suggestion, though I'm sure there are more elegant ways of doing it:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/Random/ConfirmationBias.png
Might be better if you could see a stick figure reading an article with that content. Or something. Just a random image that occurred to me while reading the comments here.
You'll never get anyone to join the Bias Busters Club. But you'll get people joining the I'm Not Like Everyone Else Club in droves, even if they're really just opposing whatever they think everyone else thinks instead of actually thinking for themselves. But joining that club is only a small first step (at least it would be if I were running it), and it's through a series of small steps that large changes in behavior are made.
I wouldn't say that my Church of Rationality discourages some biases by encouraging others. Rather, it discourages all biases (eventually) by *exploiting* some biases (initially).
To Robin, Michael, Anders, Hopefully, Nancy, Daublin, Stuart:
I'm curious about whether you noticed that inducing a cognitive bias was the heart of Robin's proposed method, and if you noticed it, when did you notice it? I myself took about 5 hours to notice it, of which only a few minutes, widely separated, was spent actually thinking about it, the rest of the time going about my regular business. Unfortunately, I don't recall how I came to realize it. I have to admit that almost always I have to depend on others to point out to me my cognitive biases: reviewers of papers, people I'm talking with, encountering opposed views and failing to argue effectively against them, etc,
I wonder if we don't need more of a medical-type model for overcoming bias, in which each of the 67 or so biases is regarded as a distinct disorder, with its own etiology, predisposing factors, symptoms, treatment, prognosis. I'm not sure how far we will get considering Bias as a single entity, or unitary category.
Stuart, yes, Eddie seemed to be proposing a freethinker club more than an overcoming bias club, just as you seem to be more proposing a "think for yourself" club. These might be good first steps for some people, but they do embody substantial biases.
Bruce, yes, it seems dangerous to try to discourage some biases by encouraging other biases.